…As commission fails to open defence against Obi’s petition

…Says witness indisposed, as court shifts case till today

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

Lawyer to the Labour Party, LP, Levi Uzoukwu, alleged yesterday that the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, was not prepared to defend its case at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal.

Uzoukwu made the allegation shortly after the court adjourned its resumed sitting, following the absence of INEC’s first defence witness.

Speaking to newsmen outside the court, the LP lawyer said his camp had a strong case and was ready to move on with its case, unlike INEC, he said, had continued to show inconsistencies.

He said: “Given the contradictions and inconsistencies and what INEC has done, I’m sure they are not ready to defend this case.

“I stand to be proven wrong, but I would wish that they defend this matter so that the public will see more things of what happened to this election.”

Meanwhile, the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, yesterday failed to open its defence to allegation by candidate of the Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi, that the 2023 presidential election was rigged.

The Presidential Election Petition Court, PEPC, sitting in Abuja, had resumed its proceedings to enable the electoral body call its first witness to justify its declaration of candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, Bola Tinubu, as winner of the presidential election that held on February 25.

However, when the case was called up for hearing, INEC, through its team of lawyers, led by Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, SAN, told the court that its witness was not available.

Though the commission expressed its determination to produce three witnesses to defend the outcome of the disputed presidential poll, it, however, told the court that the first person it wanted to put in the box as a witness, was involved in a domestic issue.

Consequently, its lead counsel, Mahmoud, SAN, persuaded the Justice Haruna Tsammani-led five-member panel of the court to adjourn further proceedings in the matter till Tuesday.

Obi’s legal team, led by Dr. Livy Uzoukwu, SAN, did not oppose the application for an adjournment.

Likewise, President Tinubu’s lead counsel,  Wole Olanipekun, SAN, as well as that of the APC, Prince Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, said they were not against the request for the matter to be adjourned.

Owing to the development, the panel, deferred the case till Tuesday to enable the electoral body to produce its first witness.

It will be recalled that Obi, who came third in the presidential contest, closed his case on June 23, after he tendered several documentary evidence and called a total of 13 out of 50 witnesses he originally scheduled to testify before the court.

Among exhibits he tendered before the court included polling unit results from 36 states of the federation and the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, Abuja, as well as bundle of documents containing the total number of Permanent Voters Card, PVCs, that were collected in 32 states prior to the 2023 general elections.

Aside from tendering four video exhibits, one of which was a press conference, where the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, Prof. Mahmoud Yakubu, assured that results of the election would be electronically transmitted to the  IReV portal in real time using the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System, BVAS, machines, Obi and his party, equally tendered bundle of documents that contained the total number of registered voters in each of the states.

Other electoral documents the court admitted in evidence were certified true copies of INEC Forms EC40Gs; EC40G1; EC40GPU, which were reports of various polling units were elections did not hold.

All the Respondents had challenged the admissibility of all the documents in evidence, saying they would adduce reasons behind their objections in their final written address.

Obi had approached the court to challenge the declaration of President Tinubu as winner of the presidential poll.

In the joint petition he filed with his party, Obi, maintained that President Tinubu was not the valid winner of the election.